I live a mile away from what has to be the most incredible Cinemark theatre in the country. I told both my kids to never give that company money again. Is the company responsible for what happened? Hell no. Are they responsible for how they reacted to lawsuits from shell shocked and grieving families? You bet. It’s the “cost of doing business”, something the corporate community has told us for years. Suck it, Cinemark. You are garbage.

Are they responsible for how they reacted to lawsuits from shell shocked and grieving families? You bet.

Exactly. I can’t blame them for the shooting, and I think the suit brought by the families was fairly groundless and bound to lose. (I can understand why they did it, though...medical care in this country isn’t cheap. I don’t blame them at all.)

That being said, ultra-fuck Cinemark for going after them to recoup those court expenses. What in the everloving christing fuck is wrong with you, Cinemark? You spent that money fighting their much smaller settlement request. Apparently these people were just inches away from taking a $90,000 settlement. Instead you opted to spend $700,000 trying to keep them from getting anything, and now you want to bleed them dry to pay your bills?

You spent that money fighting their much smaller settlement request. Apparently these people were just inches away from taking a $90,000 settlement. Instead you opted to spend $700,000 trying to keep them from getting anything, and now you want to bleed them dry to pay your bills?

That is not how the article characterizes what happened. Do you have an additional source of information? Or do you need to reread? Because according to the Times article, the $700,000 was spent largely on hiring expert witnesses; if the company hadn’t vigorously defended themselves in court, they likely would have lost the suit regardless of not having actually done anything wrong. That’s how the adversarial legal process works.

The company, again according to the article, offered that settlement, despite having previously won another lawsuit in a different court over the issue. They didn’t fight it, they were the ones who made the offer. The plaintiffs nearly took the settlement, but then they decided not to. At that point, most of the plaintiffs dropped the suit (and aren’t on the hook for any of the legal fees).

You spent that money fighting their much smaller settlement request. Apparently these people were just inches away from taking a $90,000 settlement. Instead you opted to spend $700,000 trying to keep them from getting anything, and now you want to bleed them dry to pay your bills?

No one was attempting to say that Cinemark spent $700,000 to try to counter a $90,000 request. What I was saying was that they spent exponentially more money in defending themselves than they would have spent in settlements. Especially considering they have liability insurance in the first place.

They spent $700,000 because if they had not shown that they were not at fault, the award would have been much larger than that. It’s not an option for a company to respond to a lawsuit by saying “Well, we’re right so we’re not going to defend ourselves in court” because that is not how the legal system works.

I am honestly kind of flummoxed here, because if you have any understanding of how trials work, you know that simply not defending yourself against a lawsuit isn’t an option.

And again, you clearly do not understand the situation, because your confused point is predicated on the idea that it’s Cinemark’s fault no settlement happened, when they are the ones who made the settlement offer. They spent all that money defending themselves, and offered that settlement, even though it was basically a done deal that they would win at trial.

It’s not an option for a company to respond to a lawsuit by saying “Well, we’re right so we’re not going to defend ourselves in court” because that is not how the legal system works.

Try not to give yourself a splinter molesting that strawman.

I am honestly kind of flummoxed here, because if you have any understanding of how trials work, you know that simply not defending yourself against a lawsuit isn’t an option.

You should be more flummoxed by your baffling inability to parse the English language and construct a cogent (or coherent) argument against a point anyone had actually made.

because your confused point is predicated on the idea that it’s Cinemark’s fault no settlement happened

Strike three. Just out of idle curiosity are you even trying to read the things you’re responding to, or are you just writing up responses to things you think people will say and furiously cutting and pasting them no matter how irrelevant?

You apparently can’t understand the difference between “they didn’t have to spend this much” and “they didn’t have to go to court at all.” I suspect your inability to wrap your mind around the difference is deliberate so you can continue arguing with “YOU DON’T WANT THEM TO GO TO COURT AT ALL” strawmen, because the alternative is just too depressing to contemplate.

Your point is that you think that hypothetically they could have defended themselves on the cheap? No, that’s definitely not realistic at all. Corporate lawyers and expert witnesses are very expensive. Period. Again, that may seem plausible to you but that’s because you don’t understand how trials work.

I love the passive aggressive “stomp off/attempt to get the last word” move you kids do when you lose an argument, it’s cute. You can throw a little fit all you want but at the end of the day you took an uncontroversial statement, misread it to a hilariously severe degree, got faux-outraged about an interpretation with zero basis in reality, and are now trying to slink off rather than just say “my bad, I misread you” and move on with your life like a normal, functional adult.

Okay. You still said what you said, and it was still stupid and totally factually wrong.

I actually sympathize to a point, because I understand that actually thinking in a serious manner about things and worrying about the specifics of, you know, facts and how things work is . . . not how a lot of people approach things, as the comments on this article have illustrated over and over. Maybe in a way it’s not your fault you’re out of your depth here and obviously you don’t expect people to actually examine your statements of fact.

But you still got all the basic facts totally wrong, and the particular opinions you hold are the direct result of you not taking the facts seriously.

Yes, I definitely said what I said. What I didn’t say was any of the insane conclusions you tried to draw from what I said so you could have a puerile temper tantrum about them. I suspect this has also been the case for all the other people you would like to pretend “didn’t think about how things work” enough on this topic.

It still hasn’t occurred to you that the problem might be you, has it?

The sad part is the new thing you later claimed you had meant is not only clearly not what you first said, but it’s also stupid and makes no sense! It’s not like you’re going to fool me into thinking you had said something different than what you said anyway, but the best you were able to do was to claim you’d said a different totally incoherent thing.

No, I just repeated the exact same thing and you jumped to a completely new but equally ridiculous conclusion about it, because you would apparently rather scream at scarecrows than admit to misreading something.

Actually, what I did was I directly quoted you saying things that are entirely factually false, and you have been totally unable to respond except by saying over and over that you were right and I “misread” you.

I mean, it’s fine, but you should really attempt to hold yourself to a higher standard.

You can keep repeating that all you want but it’s not magically going to become true. Your inability to understand what other people are saying is a problem with you, not a problem with every single other person in the room.

The sad thing is that this is an easily fixable problem; all it requires is for the confused person to have the tiniest shred of maturity and just ask for some clarification before going on a nonsensical rant in response to arguments absolutely no one ever made. The fact that this seems to be beyond you is kind of depressing.

See, again, we run into an issue with your apparent illiteracy. The quotes are real. You are delusional about what they mean, because you apparently have some serious reading comprehension deficiencies. The most recent example being when I just finished telling you this exactly three posts ago after which you promptly decided reality was subjective, again.

Maybe you’re not cut out for this whole “bloviating mindlessly on the internet” hobby you’ve picked out for yourself. Have you tried gardening? Less danger of you being corrected so often with gardening.

Right. I quoted you saying shit that was totally factually incorrect, entirely at odds with the article, and instead of acknowledging the fact that you were wrong and opined without bothering to find out the facts, you’re still engaging in this idiocy.

I notice from a glance at your post history starting idiotic fights like this is pretty characteristic of you. Too bad you can’t do any better.

See, this is the sort of embarrassing public mistake you could avoid if you took up gardening instead of Internet Jackassery. You quoted me saying something accurate, then decided to forget how to read so that you could scream about nonsense that exists only in your own fevered imagination. You’re continuing to do so because you have the temperament of a child and lack the basic emotional or intellectual maturity to simply acknowledge your mistake or request clarification.

It’s clearly very important to you to avoid admitting you said something wrong, even after multiple quotes and explanations on my part.

But, like, even if I pretended you were right in order to shut you up, it wouldn’t actually change the fact that you were wrong and what you said was completely stupid.

I see from a glance at your recent comment history that this dumb shit is pretty much all of your comment history, and you do a lot of it. It’s too bad for you you aren’t better at it, because then maybe sometimes you’d manage to actually be right rather than just pretending to be right.

Again, your inability to parse a simple statement (that confused literally not one single other person here) is indicative of a problem with you.

You should be especially mindful of this considering how you keep complaining that everyone else in the room ALSO misunderstands basic facts of the case. At some point you should start wondering if the problem is with your reading comprehension. I say “should” because obviously we both know you won’t, you’ll continue staggering forward convinced you’re in the right because that’s more comfortable than just admitting to an error like a normal adult.

Except I did not, you are just incapable of parsing tenses in a sentence and were assuming a causal relationship where none existed or was implied.

Again, your inability to read would have been an exponentially less embarrassing problem for you if you had just opened with “it looks like you are saying X but I disagree” so that I could have clarified for you, rather than “OMG CLEARLY YOU MEAN X AND ALSO Y AND Z, ASSUMPTIONS I AM BASING ON NOTHING, TIME TO START SHRIEKING” and making a fool of yourself.

I will also suggest, again, that you revisit all these other commenters who you believe “don’t understand the facts of the case” and see if those were just products of your own delusions as well. You apparently suffer from a severe handicap in this area.

Someone is certainly entitled, aren’t they? It’s adorable that you think you rate me patiently holding your hand and walking you through the point when you’ve thoroughly demonstrated for over a week now that when you don’t think you can win the argument being presented you just invent a new ridiculous one out of thin air and argue against that.

Why on earth would I, or anyone, waste any time attempting to debate anything with someone who still won’t admit they misread the original very clear comment that exactly zero other people had any difficulty understanding?

No, insulting you is pretty much the maximum amount of effort you’re worth until you put on your big boy pants and return to reality.

Again, your inability to read is getting embarrassing. What part of “why would I waste my time justifying your delusions about what I said” confused you? You just keep rolling past it like it’s not there. I’m kind of surprised you’re so determined to stick to what has clearly been a losing tactic for you.

Nope, not even close. How many times do you need to hear “why would anyone try to defend a position that exists only in your fevered imagination” before it sinks in through that impossibly dense skull of yours?

I say “2+2=4,” you scream “how dare you say 2+2=banana, DEFEND YOUR PREMISE,” and then you wonder why you’re getting insulted? Heh. For starters, insulting you seems more productive than just sitting here and waiting for you to spontaneously learn to read.